Rethinking Childhoodhttps://rethinkingchildhood.com
Website for Tim Gill: researcher, writer, consultantFri, 09 Dec 2016 17:09:42 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/d795ca6d91870923e26466c9ebf53f82?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngRethinking Childhoodhttps://rethinkingchildhood.com
What’s so bad about a father trying to make the world a more play-friendly place?https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/10/21/play-friendly-place-playborhood-mike-lanza/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/10/21/play-friendly-place-playborhood-mike-lanza/#commentsFri, 21 Oct 2016 17:27:24 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5736Continue reading →]]>This weekend’s New York Times has a major feature and profile on Mike Lanza and his Playborhood campaign to make neighbourhoods more play-friendly. And it’s whipping up a storm. In this piece, I give my take on the campaign and my response to the key criticisms.

First, some background. Lanza’s rallying cry is “turn your neighborhood into a place for play” – a goal he has been pursuing for at least nine years. His book and blog are first and foremost a set of practical advice, ideas and case studies for achieving that goal.

Lanza first got into the issue because of his concerns as a dad bringing up three children. What drives him is, in large part, the contrast between his own typically free-range 70s childhood and the highly constrained lives of most children today. I share his view that this change marks a profound loss.

Lanza’s campaign is aimed squarely at parents. He has three big messages for them: you should care about your kids’ play and everyday freedoms, you can and should take steps to expand them, and you should start with your own home and neighbourhood. The youtube video below introduces Lanza and his Playborhood idea.

The Playborhood home page features endorsements from writer Richard Louv, Kaboom! CEO Darell Hammond, and play and children’s rights campaigner Joan Almon, amongst others. Psychologist and play advocate Peter Gray, in his review, says that he “provides the best set of answers I have found yet to the vexing question” of reversing the decline in outdoor play. The book has garnered generally favourable reviews on Amazon and Goodreads.

Lanza is by his own account a successful tech entrepreneur. In his own neighbourhood – Menlo Park in California’s Silicon Valley – he has focused on transforming his house “from a display of conspicuous consumption to a community center for kids” (to quote from one review). As the NY Times piece shows, a big part of this is turning his own front yard into an engaging play space and social spot for local people of all ages.

A lot of the Playborhood material – and certainly a lot of Lanza’s blog posts – draw on his own experience and neighbourhood, which is affluent and suburban. However, the book includes case studies from a range of localities, including low and middle income areas.

At this point you might well be asking ‘what’s not to like?’ Well, if you’ve read Melanie Thernstrom’s piece in the NY Times you will see that she found quite a lot not to like. That article has in turn prompted a prominent follow-up blog post by Kathryn Jezer-Morton on the website Jezebel that is even more critical.

I’m going to respond to the main criticisms of Playborhood in those two pieces. My focus will be on the idea and approach, rather than on the personal attacks (feel free to see this as modelling behaviour).

Both pieces accept Lanza’s premise that the decline in free play is a problem. Their criticisms focus on his views of its causes, and his proposed solutions.

‘Mom philosophy’

I will start with perhaps the most damning accusation in Thernstrom’s piece: that Lanza sees overprotective mothers as the biggest problem. Setting out what she calls Lanza’s ‘mom philosophy,’ she says: “in Mike’s worldview, boys today (his focus is on boys) are being deprived of masculine experiences by overprotective moms, who are allowed to dominate passive dads.”

It’s not hard to see why this would provoke anger, and not just from moms who see yet another social problem being dumped on them. But is this a fair representation of Lanza’s position? For myself, I see very little to support it.

Chapter 1 [pdf link] of Playborhood – where Lanza sets out some of the causes of what he calls “the free play problem” – does mention working mothers as one of a number of what he calls “problem frames”. But he does not consider it further. Likewise, his website has – from what I can see – almost nothing that could be construed as setting out or critiquing a ‘mom philosophy’.

The Playborhood Facebook page has a long response to the NY Times piece, and in particular the accusation of being anti-mom. It says:

“when the NYTimes fact checker interviewed me a few days ago, I *clearly* said that I did *not* think that mothers were more likely than fathers to be overprotective if they spent equal time parenting, and that mothers could only be construed to be more protective insofar as they spend more time parenting.”

So has Thernstrom made stuff up? Clearly I cannot say that. In the same Facebook post, Lanza concedes that he may have – after a few glasses of wine – made a remark that could have been construed along these lines. But even if he did, it seems very unfair to me to characterise this as his ‘worldview’.

Risk and danger

The second criticism in Thermstrom’s piece is Lanza’s take on risk. She feels uncomfortable with some of his judgements about how much freedom kids should be allowed, and whether/when to step in. She says at one point that, for Lanza, “low-probability events are very unlikely and therefore dismissible; for me, they are tragedies that befall someone.”

Thermstrom’s quote expresses what I call a ‘zero risk’ mindset: that some choices are guaranteed to be risk-free. It is linked with the parental norm that being a good parent means being a controlling parent, which is dominant in many high income countries. The truth is that both the mindset and the norm are highly problematic, and need challenging.

The zero risk childhood is simply a fantasy. As soon as child gets out of bed, things can go wrong. Let’s set to one side the hundreds of child deaths each year in car crashes; one wonders if Thermstrom has given any thought to the dozens of American children a year killed by furniture falling on them.

As for the ‘controlling parent’ norm, it ignores the fact that giving children a degree of freedom – which may involve some challenging or frightening situations – actually helps them learn how to keep themselves healthy and safe. Lanza’s perspective – which I wholly support – is that as they grow up, children gradually need to be allowed time and space when they try responsibility on for size and learn what it is like to be an independent person. This means that the adults have to figure out ways to step back and allow situations to unfold, even if there is a possibility their child might get hurt or upset.

Of course, stepping back is not easy. When, how far and for how long to step back depends on circumstances and specifics. What is more, different parents have different views on risk. As I have written before, it is rarely helpful for anyone to try to second-guess these sometimes difficult judgement calls, which are rarely cut-and-dried. But what can be questioned are the values and (yes) worldviews that shape them.

Life is uncertain and unpredictable. Some celebrate this fact. Others bemoan it. Either way, the implication is clear: being thoughtful about safety means taking a balanced approach to risk.

Only for the rich

The third criticism of Lanza – more prominent in Jezer-Morton’s piece – is that his approach is solely for the rich: it is at best ignorant of, and at worst hostile to, families in less privileged circumstances. Jezer-Morton’s article ends: “Mike Lanza’s accomplishment amounts to a rich person fluffing his already extremely fluffy nest.”

Playborhood sidewalk (taken from the website)

Lanza’s own Playborhood project is indeed in a wealthy neighbourhood, which brings many advantages (though I suspect some downsides too). It has clearly benefited from his willingness to spend money on creating what sounds like a great social play space for his kids. But as has already been pointed out, he has a broader canvas, and some revealing case studies from less privileged contexts.

The revolutionary feature of his space – which Jezer-Morton appears to have completely missed out on – is not its cost: it is that it extends to his front yard. It is a community-facing resource as well as a generous, open offer to his neighbours. As this sidewalk photo shows, much of the focus of Playborhood is on public space.

Lanza’s wider point is not about bigging up his own self-built play space. It is that if parents want to give their kids more everyday freedom, a good place to start is their own home and street, and a good way forward is to build collective support and action in their own neighbourhoods.

Both pieces describe Lanza as a libertarian. That may or may not be true, but the Playborhood approach is best described as communitarian rather than libertarian. It is founded on the idea of local people pooling their resources for the greater good of their community. As such it is a profound rejection of the kind of individualism and competitiveness that so often pits parents (and perhaps especially more affluent, well-resourced parents) against one another.

It is obvious that parents in more affluent neighbourhoods do not face anything like the same challenges as those in less affluent ones. They have more time, money, power and wherewithal to get things done, better homes and outdoor environments, and greater freedom of action.

In the USA the social safety net for poor families is so precarious that even the prospect of having to take time off to look after an injured child can be enough to provoke parental anxiety (as Jezer-Morton rightly points out). And in many neighbourhoods, streets and public spaces are so hostile that no amount of community activity is likely to make them places suitable for play.

In the UK our welfare state, employment rights and health services, while not perfect, are far less punitive to the poor. But even here, experience with ‘play streets’ (resident-led, short-term road closures to allow children to play in the street) shows that in the most disadvantaged areas, finding a critical mass of parents with the time, energy and capacity to take on the bureaucracy involved can be hard. (I have researched this for Play England and hope the findings will be published soon.)

So there are limits to the potential of communitarian approaches like Playborhood. Many communities need significant support from beyond their borders if they are to secure the kind of play opportunities and everyday freedoms that are on offer in Lanza’s neighbourhood. If Lanza says that all communities have the capacity to do all this by themselves, and there is no role for proactive support from outside agencies or Government, then he’s just wrong.

However, if Lanza’s libertarianism is – in this context – focused on the damage caused by unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations, then it is a valid point. One lesson from play streets is that the simpler the paperwork for setting them up, the more likely they are to get off the ground. And this paperwork is squarely in the hands of government. I have devoted much of my professional life to fighting official bureaucracy – for instance, around playground safety – and have seen how harmful it can be.

So some of Lanza’s ideas may well be more suited to wealthier neighbourhoods. But not all. What is more, if the push to give children more everyday freedom to play and get around is to have real reach and impact, it will have to engage wealthy and influential parents amongst others. I hope that the play advocates who appear hostile to the Playborhood model will reflect on this.

Other criticisms have been levelled at Lanza in these two articles. And some have some validity. For instance, some of the language and attitudes attributed to him around girls and disability make for uncomfortable reading (a fact that he acknowledges in his Facebook post).

Separating the ideas from the person is important here. I have never met Mike (though on a recent holiday to the West Coast we were all set to meet at his place, until I went down with a severe head-cold). But I get the sense he is someone who, in person, can prompt strong reactions. He is without doubt passionate and driven, and can certainly be forthright in making his case (as you can see from this robust – but also constructive – exchange on my website).

What to do?

In her piece, Jezer-Morton asks a crucial question: “what are middle class parents who don’t want to helicopter to do?” Her answer starts: “making a critical mass of like-minded friends,” and she goes on to suggest ways they can hang out with their kids in relatively unobtrusive ways, such as in the next room at home, or at a local park.

The message is that parents who care about children’s everyday freedoms should find ways to come together, support each other, and give their children some space and time to be with their friends face-to-face, in situations where they are not overly supervised.

As I know from my work, this message speaks to parents in a wide range of circumstances. It is precisely what Playborhood is trying to support and promote. So it is baffling to me that it has provoked such hostility.

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/10/21/play-friendly-place-playborhood-mike-lanza/feed/9timrgillPlayborhood book coverPlayborhood sidewalk (taken from the website)PLAYINGOUT LOGO colourPlayground surfacing (again), cycle helmets and public risk: there are no simple answershttps://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/10/03/astm-playground-surfacing-standards-cycling-bernard-spiegal/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/10/03/astm-playground-surfacing-standards-cycling-bernard-spiegal/#commentsMon, 03 Oct 2016 11:22:48 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5726Continue reading →]]>It is with an inward sigh that I share the news that once again, the US Standards body ASTM is considering a proposal to adopt stricter requirements for playground surfacing.

As regular readers will know, I have spoken out against this proposal several times. I was relieved to see its rejection last year, and can see no good reason for it to return. I urge anyone with influence within ASTM to take appropriate action (ballot no. F08 (16-06) for ASTM subcommittee F08.63 and main committee F08).

My long-time collaborator Bernard Spiegal posted a succinct piece last week on the topic. The Guardian editorial on cycle helmets he quotes makes a crucial point: there are rarely simple answers to questions about public risk. We have to talk about values, and we have to accept that humans are complex, contradictory creatures.

As Spiegal points out, risk benefit assessment is a tool that, while simple in form, recognises the complexity of judgements about risk. It is explicit about the need for clarity and consensus about values.

By the way, if you are interested in cycle helmets – and cycling – you may like to download a report on cycling and children and young people I wrote for the National Children’s Bureau in 2005. It includes a discussion of cycle helmet safety in which I tried to do justice to the complexity of this emotive issue.

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/10/03/astm-playground-surfacing-standards-cycling-bernard-spiegal/feed/2timrgillA small but potentially significant win for risk benefit assessmenthttps://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/08/18/small-significant-win-risk-benefit-assessment/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/08/18/small-significant-win-risk-benefit-assessment/#commentsThu, 18 Aug 2016 09:21:02 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5688Continue reading →]]>How often do you hear that the ‘health and safety culture’ cannot be resisted? That fear of litigation makes people unwilling to accept the slightest possibility of accidents or injuries? The implication is that risk benefit assessment (RBA) – the balanced approach to risk management that I and others have developed – is a waste of time.

My response – that RBA is making a difference, and that the legal benchmark is to be reasonable, not to eliminate all risk – is sometimes met with scepticism or cynicism. “That may be true in theory,” the argument goes. “But in practice, as soon as a child is hurt and a claim comes in, the lawyers and the insurers just pay out, no matter what the merits of the case.”

This is why I am pleased to share the news that the charity Hackney Play Association has successfully fought off a claim after a playground accident, and that RBA was crucial to the outcome. The details were released yesterday on the Play Safety Forum (PSF) website – see below.

An adventure playground in Hackney

The case does not set a legal precedent (unlike the British Columbia decision I shared earlier this year). But it is concrete evidence that RBA is making a real difference where it matters most: in the aftermath of a playground accident. It also reinforces the view that RBA is a sensible approach: a view shared by none other than the Health and Safety Executive.

All of which is invaluable ammunition for anyone who wants to stand up to the ‘health and safety culture’ and fight for a more balanced, thoughtful take on risk in play.

The Case

On the 21st of March 2014 a child suffered an injury to her fingers as a result of trapping them in a door at an open access play…

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/08/18/small-significant-win-risk-benefit-assessment/feed/3imagetimrgillAn adventure playground in HackneyMaking the case for more playful and child-friendly placeshttps://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/08/02/playful-child-friendly-places-urbanization/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/08/02/playful-child-friendly-places-urbanization/#commentsTue, 02 Aug 2016 11:59:13 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5625Continue reading →]]>It is obvious that children’s play experiences and everyday freedoms are hugely shaped by the places where they live. So anyone who cares about these issues should also be concerned about the qualities of neighbourhoods, towns and cities, and about how they are planned, designed and built.

Human habitats are changing fast. In particular, cities are growing and changing faster than ever before – and more and more children are growing up in cities. How should play advocates, and advocates for more child-friendly places, respond to these changes? This post tries to answer that question.

The post brings together some key strands of my thinking over the years on child-friendliness, outcomes and advocacy. It is a very lightly edited version of my response to a discussion on play and the environment that was initiated by the International Play Association (IPA), of which I am a member. You can find the IPA discussion paper here.

The challenge

IPA is right to address the issue of how children’s opportunities for play are influenced by the environment in which they live. As the IPA paper recognises, urbanization is perhaps the most important environmental factor shaping children’s play experiences. Urbanization is in turn driven and shaped by rapid globalization.

In the face of this shift, government planning processes are often ineffective and/or weak. This failure, combined with a lack of effective citizen engagement, is leading to the spread of unplanned, speculative development that is not child-friendly, not sustainable and counter to the public good. Children’s voices and perspectives on urban environments are all but absent. Moreover, the challenges facing those who wish to influence urban policy are growing.

The IPA discussion paper gives a useful overview of the relationship between children’s right to play and the environment. It rightly sets out the links between good play opportunities and wider health and developmental outcomes. Another strength is the broadness of its scope, in terms of recognising the widely differing contexts and circumstances that limit children’s right to play in different parts of the world.

However, the paper has significant gaps as a position statement. Taking it forward, IPA’s position should be strengthened in three ways to make a stronger case and build an effective platform for action:

by framing children’s play in the context of child-friendliness;

through an increased focus on outcomes, with the aim of strengthening the policy case;

through recognising the lack of influence of the play advocacy sector and hence the need to build alliances with other progressive urban policy advocates whose agendas overlap.

Child-friendliness

There is a large body of research, policy and practice on the topic of child-friendliness, much of it informed by children’s rights perspectives. This work could do with revisiting and reframing.

Greater recognition is needed of the role of walking, cycling and children’s independent mobility, both as a means to improve their access to play opportunities and as forms of play experience in their own right. Walkability in particular is critical to children’s experience of place as they grow up. Play advocates need to help expand policy-makers’ understanding of this crucial planning concept so that children’s perspectives and experiences of walking are properly taken into account.

For this reason, IPA should reframe its work on children’s play and the environment through the adoption of a fresh conception of child-friendliness which brings together questions of places/provision/experiences and access/mobility.

The Finnish academic Marketta Kyttä has developed a conceptual framework for child-friendliness that provides a sound, helpful basis for play advocacy. It is based on Gibson’s work on affordances and on the role of children’s everyday freedoms – their independent mobility – in actualising affordances. It characterises child-friendliness in terms of – on the one hand – the experiences on offer in a neighbourhood and – on the other – children’s ability to access those experiences. The framework is a valuable starting point for exploring the characteristics of child-friendly environments that are most relevant to play.

Marketta Kyttä’s typology of child-friendly environments

My simplified version of Kyttä’s typology

One implication of this framework is that it shows the connections between child-friendliness and sustainability. Put simply, a child-friendly city shares many of the qualities of a sustainable city: it is compact, easy to walk/cycle around, and has a good supply of accessible, welcoming green space.

Outcomes

Historically the child-friendly cities (CFC) movement has focussed largely on process measures, with little focus on outcomes. For example, UNICEF’s 2004 publication Building Child Friendly Cities: A Framework for Action sets out nine elements or building blocks, all of which are strongly process-oriented, emphasising children’s engagement and participation.

Work to promote children’s participation is not unimportant. But on its own, it is not enough. Advocacy based solely on principles of rights or participation has so far failed to provide the leverage that is needed to influence those whose decisions shape the lives of the many millions of children who are growing up in cities. A stronger and broader policy case needs to be made for why decision-makers should have any interest in child-friendliness.

Greater emphasis is needed on making the policy case – and building the evidence base – for CFCs, especially in terms of health, developmental and economic benefits. For example, much research has been carried out within the fields of public health and urban planning on the environmental determinants of health, including research on the benefits of compact urban design, walkable/cycleable neighbourhoods, affordable, efficient public transport, and accessible green space.

Some of this research has addressed children and young people. Yet it has not been brought together or presented in a form that would make it useful for advocates of child-friendliness.

A stronger emphasis is also needed on outcome measures (as opposed to process measures) within the CFC framework and its associated accreditation and implementation tools. These could include levels of children’s independent mobility, or measures of children’s time spent in outdoor play.

Finally, case studies of persuasive child-friendly planning and policy interventions should be identified and shared, making clear not only the qualities that make them child-friendly but also their relevance to public policy agendas.

Public space in Rotterdam

Two candidate case studies are Rotterdam (which has invested substantial public funding into physical changes to make some neighbourhoods more child-friendly) and Bogotá (where twice-mayor Enrique Peñalosa has placed a strong emphasis on the principle that children are an ‘indicator species’ for cities, one example of which is its citywide ‘ciclovia’ network of regularly closed roads that open up public space for families to enjoy).

Links with progressive urban agendas

The above insight about the overlap between child-friendiness and sustainability is an illustration of my final line of argument: that play advocates should explore and develop shared agendas with others who are trying to influence urban policy. IPA and play advocacy organisations need to raise their profile and credibility on urban planning, transport and public space agendas.

This is most likely to be achieved through engagement and dialogue with agencies that are active and influential in these policy areas, rather than through being a lone voice and developing stand-alone positions. While grounded in clear, explicit values and principles, these shared agendas should aim to move beyond the articulation of policy positions and into the territory of strategy and tactics.

For example, those campaigning for liveability and sustainability in cities support many initiatives – the promotion of walking and cycling, for instance, and improvements in public space – that would also make cities more child-friendly. Through building on these shared agendas, play advocates and advocates for liveability and sustainability are more likely to have a positive influence than if they remain separate.

As globalisation – and the neoliberal planning processes and practices that it gives rise to – gain momentum, those who seek to steer urban development in a progressive direction will face ever greater challenges. This strengthens the rationale for broad progressive alliances.

Recommendations

I offer three recommendations, which distil the key actions from the above discussion. These recommendations focus on the role of IPA and play advocacy groups, as these are likely to make up the audience that IPA’s programme of work is most likely to be in a position to influence.

Adopt and adapt the CFC framework

The UNICEF CFC framework should be reviewed to focus on play, leisure and independent mobility and on outcomes and impact (not just process).

Build the policy case

IPA should gather and disseminate the evidence base in support of more child-friendly cities, including compelling and well-documented case studies.

Develop shared agendas

IPA should build links and develop shared agendas with NGOs that promote progressive approaches to urban planning, transport and public space, and should encourage play advocacy groups to do the same.

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/08/02/playful-child-friendly-places-urbanization/feed/10timrgillChild playing on pavement in residential area of DelftDiagram from Marketta Kyttä's 2004 paperDiagram of my simplified version of Kyttä's typologyUNICEF CFC frameworkYoung people using a public space in RotterdamBack to the future: how London’s new mayor can reconnect children with naturehttps://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/07/11/sowing-the-seeds-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-reconnect-children-with-nature/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/07/11/sowing-the-seeds-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-reconnect-children-with-nature/#commentsMon, 11 Jul 2016 13:38:34 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5604Continue reading →]]>So our new Mayor has made a public commitment that all children should have access to nature. The Government will also soon launch a new plan to restore nature and reconnect children to it. How might Mayor Khan fulfil this ambitious pledge so that London also leads on the Government strategy?

For a blueprint, Sadiq need look no further than my 2011 Sowing the Seeds report, whose central vision strongly echoes his commitment. My goal in writing the report was to get beyond the warm words and (let’s be honest) at times nostalgic sentiment that tends to frame this topic.

Sowing the Seeds took a hard-nosed look at the evidence to show how spending time in nature enhances children’s physical and emotional well-being and learning, and fosters their concern for their environment.

Yet London’s children miss out badly. What’s more, the capital’s disadvantaged children miss out the most. They have poorer access to green space, and what little they do have is often neglected and unloved.

Sowing the Seeds also mapped out the action being taken across the capital to address the problem. It showcased city farms, adventure playgrounds, nature play areas, green school grounds, and outdoor learning programmes. Yet even when all these initiatives were added up, they reached less than 1 in 20 of the capital’s children.

Forest school session, Randolph Beresford Early Years Centre

But there are signs of progress, especially among our members and supporters. Forest School programmes are spreading fast, as is Empty Classroom Day – inspired by my report, and now rebooted across the country as part of Persil’s Dirt is Good campaign. The network that formed around the report – Sowing the Seeds London – is becoming more active and vocal – and not just online.

At a policy level, the GLA’s revised planning guidance on outdoor play gave welcome support for the value of natural spaces, though its impact on what ends up getting built is open to question.

More recently, the exciting community-led movement to make London a National Park City has taken up much of the thinking of Sowing the Seeds, and also its core vision of reconnecting children to nature.

But overall, progress has been slow and fragmented. Londoners need to ask ourselves fundamental questions about what kind of city we want to see for our children. We can sleepwalk to a future where decent local green space is a privilege not a right, where education becomes ever more narrow and desk-bound, and where children – especially poor children – are notable only by their absence from public space.

Or we can put sustainability, child- and family-friendliness and tackling inequality at the heart of our vision and actions. It should be the latter and especially as the Government is gearing up to launch a campaign to better connect children with nature as part of its long-awaited 25 year Natural Environment Plan. London should lead in responding to this, not sit on the side-lines.

If Mayor Khan wants further proof of what’s possible, as well as reading the Sowing the Seeds report, he should check out Enrique Peñalosa, the recently re-elected mayor of Bogotá whose dynamism and radicalism has helped turn that city around.

Peñalosa’s most famous maxim is that children are an indicator species for cities: if a city works for children, it will work for everyone. His achievements show what can be done when a city focuses on improving the lives of its youngest citizens: not only at home and in school, but also in our streets and green spaces.

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/07/11/sowing-the-seeds-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-reconnect-children-with-nature/feed/3timrgillSowing the seeds report front coverForest school session, Randolph BeresfordAn alert and call for action – a new Standard threat to play provision | Bernard Spiegalhttps://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/07/04/an-alert-and-call-for-action-a-new-standard-threat-to-play-provision-bernard-spiegal/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/07/04/an-alert-and-call-for-action-a-new-standard-threat-to-play-provision-bernard-spiegal/#commentsMon, 04 Jul 2016 14:34:28 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5597Continue reading →]]>A swift reblog to add my voice to this call for action from my longtime collaborator, Bernard Spiegal. The immediate issue is a highly problematic proposal on surfacing from some of those involved in setting European standards for play equipment.

———–

This is an alert. An alert to all those – across Europe and wider – where European play equipment and surfacing standards are held, or will be held, to apply. A new Standard is being …

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/07/04/an-alert-and-call-for-action-a-new-standard-threat-to-play-provision-bernard-spiegal/feed/6timrgillTraix 2015 playground surface test kitThe R word: risk, uncertainty and the possibility of adverse outcomes in playhttps://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/06/15/risk-uncertainty-adverse-outcomes-play/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/06/15/risk-uncertainty-adverse-outcomes-play/#commentsWed, 15 Jun 2016 10:57:15 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5485Continue reading →]]>Let’s say that, like me, you are signed up to the idea that we’ve become too overprotective and anxious about children in their play. What language should we use to make the case for a better approach? In particular, does the word ‘risk’ – for instance, in the term ‘risky play’ – help or not?

UK play advocate Adrian Voce – my successor at what became Play England – has questioned the use of the term ‘risk’. While recognising the progress that has been made on the place of risk in play, he says:

Although ‘risky’ and ‘adventurous’ are, in a sense, synonymous, the latter word has an unarguably more positive meaning. It also captures much better the essence of children at play – wanting to push the boundaries, test their limits and, sure, take some risks – but in the pursuit of fun and excitement, not the reckless endangerment that the term ‘risky play’ can evoke… ‘Risky’ cannot be the most appropriate word to describe the opportunities and environments we want to provide for them, or the practice we adopt in doing so.

His concerns are echoed by American teacher and blogger Kim Allsop, who said in a recent post “please, can we stop talking about risk? Instead, let’s talk about adventure, preparation and trust.”

I hope we would all agree that we need a more balanced, thoughtful approach to the unpredictability that is such a central part of children’s play. We need to recognise the value of a degree of freedom, choice and autonomy. And we want to get well away from where we were in the 1990s, when the word ‘play’ had the word ‘safe’ inserted before it by default.

We need to accept that when children play freely, the outcomes are uncertain. In other words, we need to accept real risk. Of course, this does not mean accepting recklessness – but no-one is saying it does.

Accepting uncertainty of outcomes – accepting risk – means accepting that sometimes, children will make mistakes and get hurt or upset. In fact, we are not doing our job properly if they do *not* sometimes make mistakes and get hurt or upset (thank you Teacher Tom, who has grappled with the language here more than once).

The acceptance of risk is not just a detail: it is the single most important step that we are asking the anxious to take. Using the word ‘risk’ is of value precisely because it faces head-on the possibility of adverse outcomes. (Back in 2002, the milestone Managing Risk in Play Provision position statement strikingly stated “it may on occasions be unavoidable that play provision exposes children to the risk – the very low risk – of serious injury or even death.”)

Avoiding the word ‘risky’ and instead using ‘adventurous’ or ‘challenging’ is having our cake of uncertainty and eating it. The implied message is ‘your child will have adventures – but don’t worry, nothing will go wrong.’

There are lessons from the knots that ‘adventure activity’ folk have tied themselves into for decades over risk and safety (as Simon Beames argues in his recent bookAdventurous learning: A pedagogy for a changing world). A similar fate befell many British adventure playgrounds through the 1980s and 1990s. The adoption of the word ‘adventure’ did not appear to insulate them from the rise of excessive risk aversion.

That said, I do have reservations about the term ‘risky play’. I recall first coming across it when reviewing Helen Tovey’s 2007 bookPlaying Outdoors: Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge. As I said at the time, it conjures up unhelpful notions of ‘doses’ of ‘risky play’ as a kind of antidote and add-on to overprotective, intrusive supervision the rest of the time. But I would hope that thoughtful practitioners would be alive to that danger.

As for the views of parents, the press or the public, I am wary of speculating. I do have one (admittedly unscientific) piece of evidence that these audiences may not find the R word as off-putting as some seem to think. It comes from this news article. After reading it, 98% of those who voted in effect voted ‘yes’ to elements of risk in playgrounds.

Even if in some contexts, the R word is a step too far for some – and it clearly is – language changes, and the meaning of words evolves. And sometimes, that happens precisely through choosing words that question and confront existing values. Just look at how the LGBT community has reclaimed the word ‘queer’.

The Norwegian early years academic Ellen Sandseter is closely associated with promoting ‘risky play’ and has worked up a research definition of the phrase. Her contribution to this debate parallels my views on the merits of ‘risk’ as against ‘adventure’ or ‘challenge’.

She also makes the sound point that context and culture are important, and reasons to be wary of general statements about language. I wonder, for instance, whether the USA might be one place where the R word is a hard sell.

Having said that, let us look globally at play advocacy over the last decade or so. While there are not many causes for celebration, one of them is surely around risk.

This global progress has been underpinned by clear messages about what freedom, choice and uncertainty mean in children’s play. They mean risk.

I came across two examples in recent months. The first is from Sweden, and the Government guidance for a £50 million investment programme in school playgrounds. Its first substantive section is headed “necessary risk-taking.” It states: “Open spaces for children and young people should be planned and designed to promote children’s opportunity to seek excitement in their play, even where this may involve some risk taking” (according to Google Translate). The second is from the Netherlands, where Dutch play advocates are meeting next week to discuss ‘risk and resilience’.

My own work on risk with parents, educators, playworkers and decision-makers over the years has taken me across the UK and to mainland Europe, North America, Japan and Australasia. The impact of this work is for others to judge. But what I can say is that clarity about risk – that it means real uncertainty of outcome – has been a central and indispensable theme.

For proof of this, take a look at the tag cloud on the right hand side of your screen.

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/06/15/risk-uncertainty-adverse-outcomes-play/feed/14timrgillLunchtime at Beacon Rise Primary SchoolManaging risk in play provision 2002Australian Telegraph website poll 1Australian Telegraph website poll result2015 Swedish government guidance on school groundsShow or tell: How should educators and playworkers back up their real-time decisions about risk?https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/05/25/educators-playworkers-decisions-dynamic-risk-benefit-assessment/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/05/25/educators-playworkers-decisions-dynamic-risk-benefit-assessment/#commentsWed, 25 May 2016 10:01:09 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5393Continue reading →]]>This post explores how the real-time decisions of educators, playworkers and other staff who oversee children fit into the overall risk management process, and how they are held to account for those decisions. I have written it at the suggestion of the UK Play Safety Forum. The PSF would welcome comments on the position set out here – as would I.

Bayonne Nursery Forest School session

I will start with describing a real-life scenario from a Forest School session run by Bayonne Nursery a few years ago. (Those who have heard me talk on risk will recognise it from a video clip that I often show.) A group of four-year-old children are exploring an area of woodland. After clearing away fallen branches from around a large tree trunk that crosses over a dry ditch, three girls start to shimmy across. Two succeed, while the third becomes alarmed and gives up. Forest school-trained educators, present throughout, do not intervene at any point – not even to give encouragement or warnings. This is despite the fact that at points, things look like they might be getting challenging, uncomfortable or even slightly dangerous.

In staffed situations such as schools, early years settings, out of school/free time facilities, outdoor learning programmes and playwork settings, the real-time judgements of front-line staff (paid and voluntary) about whether, when and how to intervene are fundamental to shaping children’s experiences. Interventions and decisions are informed by staff’s values and understandings about the goals and objectives of their setting and practice: and crucially by their thinking about risk. They are highly sensitive to circumstances, and may happen in a matter of seconds.

The overall process, labelled dynamic risk benefit assessment (RBA) in Managing Risk in Play Provision [pdf link], is complex, fluid, largely intuitive, and difficult to document. In staffed settings, dynamic RBA may well be the most significant part of risk management. Yet as Managing Risk in Play Provision says, it may be undervalued by risk assessment perspectives that focus on the need for written evidence that procedures have been followed.

So how should staff and organisations show they are being reasonable in their approach to dynamic RBA? Some organisations have developed analytical tools such as flowcharts and decision trees in an attempt to set out how decision-making processes might work. Learning through Landscapes has one on its website, and a group of playworkers from Wrexham and Conwy Councils and Glyndwr University has also developed something along similar lines.

Such tools may be helpful in opening up professional debate about relevant factors and options in different circumstances. But how useful are they in capturing sound decision-making in dynamic RBA situations, which may happen so quickly and be dealt with so intuitively that there is no time for reflection, let alone record-keeping? There is a real risk that such tools could be seen not simply as a prompt for discussion, but as a measure of compliance: a requirement that staff are expected to follow – and expected to show that they have followed through documentation or other records.

It is hard to see how this demand for an ‘audit trail’ can be met without adding to the burden of staff, and without distorting the very decision-making that such processes are supposed to be supporting.

Rather than trying to document decision-making through claiming that it is supported by a particular process, a more practical and promising approach may be to emphasise the role of professional competence. This could be shown through relevant experience, skills, qualifications, supervision procedures, professional development and evidence of sound judgements in the past. Good practice in dynamic RBA is also likely to be supported through giving staff opportunities to reflect on their experiences and practice, for instance through ensuring they have space and time to discuss minor adverse experiences and ‘near misses’.

Can sound decision-making in dynamic RBA be ‘audited’ or proven through any kind of documentation? Are flowcharts or decision trees valuable tools, or traps? Should we reject the demand for case-by-case evidence that procedures were followed, and instead focus on the importance of relevant experience, knowledge and skills, supported by time for reflection?

My own view is that when it comes to questions about the soundness of dynamic RBA judgements, the right place to focus is the competences of the individual or staff team, rather than compliance with any procedure. Whether or not you agree, I would welcome your thoughts and comments, and will feed these into upcoming debates at Play Safety Forum meetings.

]]>https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/05/25/educators-playworkers-decisions-dynamic-risk-benefit-assessment/feed/16timrgillBayonne Nursery School Forest School sessionLevels of risk management, from Managing Risk in Play ProvisionLearning through Landscapes Dynamic RBA flowchartPlayground head injuries: what does recent research show?https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/05/17/playground-head-injuries-concussion-tbi-usa-summary/
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2016/05/17/playground-head-injuries-concussion-tbi-usa-summary/#commentsTue, 17 May 2016 11:56:57 +0000http://rethinkingchildhood.com/?p=5317Continue reading →]]>A medical study [pdf link] has just been published that looks at hospital emergency department (ED) visits for concussions (or to use the clinical term, traumatic brain injuries or TBIs) to children arising from playground incidents in the USA.

My aim in this post is to give a summary of the study and to scrutinize some of its conclusions. I plan in a future post to discuss its wider implications.

The study used data from a national injury surveillance system to work out injury rates for each year between 2001 and 2013. It also looked at whether or not children were admitted to hospital and the playground equipment involved, amongst other factors, and it analysed the data for trends. It claims to be the first national study on playground-related TBIs since 1999.

The study is important not only because of its new data, but also because it has led to widespread media coverage in the USA. Moreover, it has been widely discussed within the playground safety community. I understand that it has been circulated to members of one of ASTM’s playground safety committees by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Members tell me that it is being seen by some as providing evidence for reviving the playground surfacing proposal that ASTM ultimately rejected last year.

I would welcome comments on the summary offered below, and on what the findings might mean: both for playground safety, and for children’s health and development.

What did the study find?

The study found an average of around 35 ED visits per 100,000 children under the age of 14 per year over the 13-year period. The figure was higher for children aged 5 – 9 years (53.5 per 100,000 per year).

The study found that on average, 2.6% of the children visiting ED were admitted to hospital: a rate of 0.9 children per 100,000 per year. This suggests that the vast majority of playground-related TBIs would – to quote the paper – “likely be best categorised as mild in severity.” (Clinicians typically categorise TBIs as either mild, moderate or severe, depending on the presenting symptoms.)

The study also found that visits had increased over the period (a finding picked up by much of the media coverage). However, the increase was not constant. It found a slight decrease over the years 2001-2005, followed by a more significant increase for 2006-2013. Much of the media coverage did not discuss this pattern, but focused on the rise. The average rate rose from around 22/100,000 in 2005 to around 50/100,000 in 2013.

The study also looked at ED visits in relation to different types of playground equipment. It found that monkey bars/playground gyms accounted for 28% of visits, with the same percentage for swings. Slides accounted for 18% of visits. However as the paper notes, it is not possible to draw conclusions about relative risk from this study, because of the lack of data on children’s usage of different types of equipment.

In lay terms, what do the figures mean?

The figures show that an average American elementary (primary) school of 500 pupils would expect to see around one ED visit from a playground-related TBI every 5 or 6 years. As already noted, the figures for hospitalization were much lower. They mean that a city with a total population of around 700,000 – about the size of Memphis, Tennessee – would expect to see one hospital admission each year due to a playground-related TBI.

What are TBIs?

Traumatic brain injuries are injuries to the head that give rise to clinically defined symptoms such as loss of consciousness, and that are caused by external factors (rather than by existing medical conditions or illnesses). They are typically a result of impacts with other objects or the ground. The word ‘traumatic’ is used in the medical sense, to describe an injury caused by an extrinsic agent. The clinical term does not imply any long-term consequences. This is in contrast with ordinary usage, where the word ‘traumatic’ does imply longer-term problems.

What happened to the injured children?

Apart from looking at whether or not they were admitted, the study itself did not follow up what happened to the injured children. However, other studies show that TBIs can have serious and life-changing consequences, including physical impairments, lowered cognitive skills, and behavioural problems. The consequences vary depending on the severity of the injury. As already noted, this study suggests that the vast majority of playground-related TBIs are mild.

What are the health implications of mild TBIs?

The paper states that “TBIs, even those categorised as ‘mild’ can have serious implications”. The study itself does not provide new evidence for this (as already noted, there was no follow-up data). The paper cites four other papers in support. However, this supporting evidence is not strong. Two of the studies cited do not look at mild TBIs, so they cannot support this claim. A third study found a strong association between severity of TBI and outcome (the more severe the TBI, the worse the outcome). The final study cited did find evidence of adverse outcomes for mild TBIs. However, the study’s authors note that this may have been because of pre-existing conditions and not a result of the TBI itself (the study design ruled out claims about cause and effect).

I plan to return in a future post to this important question about the implications of mild TBIs.

How do playground falls compare with other causes of TBI?

The study does not compare playgrounds with other causes of TBIs in children. It does cite a 2011 CDC report [pdf link] on nonfatal TBIs related to sports and recreation among American children aged under 20 years, stating that this report “estimated that … playground activities accounted for the highest estimated number of ED visits among the activities examined.” This statement is incorrect: the CDC report cited shows playground activities third behind bicycling and football for children aged under 20 years (see Table 2 of the CDC paper). For children aged under 15 years the picture is not as clear, because the data presented is incomplete. However, it suggests that even for this age group, bicycling accounted for more ED visits than playgrounds (see Table 3 of the CDC paper).

Other studies suggest that overall, playground falls make up a small proportion of ED visits for TBIs, and that several other causes are more significant. For instance, this 2014 study on TBIs of children aged 3 – 18 in Ontario showed that playground equipment accounted for about 4 per cent of such visits, and were the 8th most common cause. Hockey/skating, motor vehicle accidents, football/rugby, snow sports, cycling, baseball and soccer all caused more ED visits than playground equipment.

What might explain the changes over time?

The paper offers a number of possible explanations for the rise in ED visits. These include: increased participation in playground activities; increased TBI incidence over time; and heightened public awareness of TBI and concussions. They point to four factors that could explain heightened awareness, including public education campaigns, media coverage of sports injuries, state laws on concussion and ‘return-to-play’, and the issue of TBI amongst returning military personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan. The authors do not offer further commentary on the changes: they do not discuss why playground participation might have risen since 2005, or why TBI incidences might have risen.

What are the authors’ conclusions?

The authors conclude that “strategies to reduce the incidence and severity of TBIs sustained on playgrounds are needed.” They state that strategies could “address design, surfacing, and maintenance.” They also point to “appropriate supervision and child behavior modification” as possible responses. The assumption is that existing TBI rates are too high, and the implication is that effective strategies are available to reduce them further. However, there is no discussion to support this assumption, and no evidence is given on the merits of different playground injury prevention strategies.

What does the study tell us about surfacing in playgrounds?

The study did not look at surfacing. Hence it cannot tell us anything about the effectiveness of different types of surfacing. The paper states that the NEISS-AIP data “do not provide detailed information about injury circumstances, such as playground surfacing and risk behaviors. As a result, NEISS-AIP cannot be used to assess the impact of these factors on injury incidence.”

Obsession, however, is not education. We cannot control every situation that a child may experience… If parents are obsessed with always knowing where their children are and controlling all their movements, they will seek only to dominate space. But this is no way to educate, strengthen and prepare their children to face challenges. What is most important is the ability lovingly to help them grow in freedom, maturity, overall discipline and real autonomy.

I am a non-believer myself. Even so, this is well worthy of a reblog. Full credit to the Pope for giving such a clear statement on the need for parents to give children some space and time to make their own journey to becoming responsible, confident, competent and resilient people. It speaks directly to the value of everyday freedoms in childhood. And hats off to Lenore for spotting and sharing.